I came across this article in the Anglican Times about more than 36,000 Finns leaving the Lutheran Church in only two weeks over the issue of homosexuality. What gives this additional significance is that people who left were offended that the Church was not doing enough to end homophobia. This was in 2010.

The Archbishop of Turku [Primate of Finland], Dr Kari Mäkinen, has issued a statement calling for debate on the issue of homosexuality: “I understand that many are expecting that
the Church would more clearly show that it accepts homosexuality. Now would be precisely the time to hold debate on homo¬sexuality, respecting others and listening to them.”churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2010/29-october/news/thousands-resign-from-church-of-finland

Meanwhile the consecration of Roland Gustafsson as Mission Bishop for Sweden and Finland in defiance of state-Church archbishops of the two countries using this defense:

The Lutheran Confessions hold, among other things, that “… when regular bishops become enemies of the Gospel and are unwilling to administer ordination, the churches retain the right to ordain for themselves.” [Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, 1537.] Thus the Mission Province considers itself a “non-territorial diocese” within the Church of Sweden and the Church of Finland, a claim disputed by those churches.scandhouse.org/roland/roland.html

I came across this article in the Anglican Times about more than 36,000 Finns leaving the Lutheran Church in only two weeks over the issue of homosexuality. What gives this additional significance is that people who left were offended that the Church was not doing enough to end homophobia. This was in 2010.

Meanwhile the consecration of Roland Gustafsson as Mission Bishop for Sweden and Finland in defiance of state-Church archbishops of the two countries using this defense:

Lutherans are finding that the countries where we have high numbers seem to be the most liberal politically.

Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer understood this - easy Christianity will be it’s own death as the culture changes it to look like itself.

The crowd is untruth. And I could weep, in every case I can learn to long for the eternal, whenever I think about our age’s misery, even compared with the ancient world’s greatest misery, in that the daily press and anonymity make our age even more insane with help from “the public,” which is really an abstraction, which makes a claim to be the court of last resort in relation to “the truth”; for assemblies which make this claim surely do not take place. That an anonymous person, with help from the press, day in and day out can speak however he pleases (even with respect to the intellectual, the ethical, the religious), things which he perhaps did not in the least have the courage to say personally in a particular situation; every time he opens up his gullet—one cannot call it a mouth—he can all at once address himself to thousands upon thousands; he can get ten thousand times ten thousand to repeat after him—and no one has to answer for it; in ancient times the relatively unrepentant crowd was the almighty, but now there is the absolutely unrepentant thing: No One, an anonymous person: the Author, an anonymous person: the Public, sometimes even anonymous subscribers, therefore: No One. No One! God in heaven, such states even call themselves Christian states. One cannot say that, again with the help of the press, “the truth” can overcome the lie and the error.

I came across this article in the Anglican Times about more than 36,000 Finns leaving the Lutheran Church in only two weeks over the issue of homosexuality. What gives this additional significance is that people who left were offended that the Church was not doing enough to end homophobia. This was in 2010.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. - 1 John 2:19

Only an ecclesiastical acknowledgement of what they’ve already done to themselves. It’s a bit pointless to claim superiority of moral ground on any given issue if said moral issue is never practically enforced at the parish/diocese level…especially if the offenders are high profile politicians.

Only an ecclesiastical acknowledgement of what they’ve already done to themselves. It’s a bit pointless to claim superiority of moral ground on any given issue if said moral issue is never practically enforced at the parish/diocese level…especially if the offenders are high profile politicians.

It’s a practically a given that if an LCMS, ELS, WELS or ELDoNA member were to publicly defend non-Christian (or non-Lutheran) values --particularly if that individual holds a position of political influence and power-- they would merit a talking-to from their pastor, and likely not be permitted to communion until they repented. Heck, in the LCMS we even beat up our pastors simply for appearing to support unionism with other Christians, regardless of intent.

It’s a practically a given that if an LCMS, ELS, WELS or ELDoNA member were to publicly defend non-Christian (or non-Lutheran) values --particularly if that individual holds a position of political influence and power-- they would merit a talking-to from their pastor, and likely not be permitted to communion until they repented. Heck, in the LCMS we even beat up our pastors simply for appearing to support unionism with other Christians, regardless of intent.

Name one parish that denied holy Communion to a politician of any Synod?

Only an ecclesiastical acknowledgement of what they’ve already done to themselves. It’s a bit pointless to claim superiority of moral ground on any given issue if said moral issue is never practically enforced at the parish/diocese level…especially if the offenders are high profile politicians.

Well…you did not answer the last part…Should they be thrown out of the RCC? Should laity continue praying for them and their enlightenment?.

And let us say, an ecclesiastical acknowledgement is done…then what?

Or should the church laity and clergy, or their pastor, continue counseling and praying for them?

It’s a bit pointless to claim superiority of moral ground on any given issue if said moral issue is never practically enforced at the parish/diocese level…especially if the offenders are high profile politicians

What do you hope to accomplish by a public shaming?

So…just because someone chooses to not follow the church on its stand on abortion…should the church then stop or alter its stance on abortion…is this what you are proposing?

Or should the Church continue is teachings…and pray for those who do not yet follow to eventually form their consciences to the teachings of their church?

Easy, friend. Per Crucem was only responding in kind to a friendly “;)”.

That said, I’m not sure speck/plank applies here. The comparison is less “RCC vs. Lutherans,” and more “[insert communion] vs. dissenters.” Lutherans notice the planks (dissenters) in their own eye (church), and restrict their communion lovingly and accordingly.